Chomsky's Statism

[The Feral Underclass]

This is an interesting little essay attacking Noam Chomsky's various statist positions. It was written by a guy in a US anarchist group, the 'Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade.'

«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« «««««««

Chomsky's Statism: An Anarchism for the Next Millennium?
by Joe Peacott

Noam Chomsky is seen by many as one of the more prominent anarchists in the united states. But, many times in the last several years he has come out publicly in favor of strengthening the federal government. Moreover, he argues that there is no contradiction between this stance and his advocacy of a stateless future. Such a position is in direct conflict with the traditional anarchist insight that means inevitably influence (and frequently corrupt or totally derail) intended ends, and deserves examination and rebuttal.

Full Essay (http://world.std.com/~bbrigade/chomsky%27s%20statism)

[antieverything]

What a crock of horse-shit...even for a non-Anarchist such as myself!

Chomsky's position is quite consistant and reasonable and Peacott's position seems to be that Anarchists should support Reaganism because it dismantles any progressive aspects of the federal government. Chomsky believes that each new set of struggles is launched from the starting point set by previous struggles. We build to eventual revolution by building the basis of a just society until the contradictions between democracy and capitalism become apparent. This is the same position Marx held!

[redstar2000]

I found Joe Peacott's essay quite well argued; Chomsky looks more and more to me like an "anarcho-liberal" -- anarchist in words and bourgeois liberalism in deeds.


We build to eventual revolution by building the basis of a just society until the contradictions between democracy and capitalism become apparent. This is the same position Marx held!

Yes, but he had a good excuse. In the 19th century, it was widely believed that "representative democracy" was "a magic key" that would open the door to genuine popular rule.

No one then, least of all the bourgeoisie, realized how you could create the image of democracy while retaining all real power in your own hands.

Chomsky should know better...and almost certainly does. I think he has let being a "public intellectual" (mini-celebrity) go to his head. Now he thinks he can play "the great game" (bourgeois politics) with the "big kids"...who eat guys like him for breakfast.

It's an old story...and almost always has a shameful ending.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[refuse_resist]

I concur. From what I have read by himand his views on a lot of things, the term "Anarcho-Liberal" best suits him.

[elijahcraig]

I agree with antieverything on this issue.